In the midst of a tragedy
of this magnitude, I feel sort of strange sharing what might be a
fairly petty observation. But it is eating at me. And I'll get to it
in a second.
It's not that more
serious issues arising out of the Virginia murders don't come to mind, but
I am almost compulsive about withholding judgment while these events are
unfolding and while people are still dealing with such unimaginable
loss. It's just that I have always been very queasy about instant
diagnosis, second-guessing and premature proffering of "expert"
opinions.
I should add that I know
someone has to be trying to make sense as things
unfold, and good journalists are doing just that. But as someone who has
studied these kinds of incidents for years, each time one occurs I wait longer
and longer to say anything, lest I become part of the noise that is so pervasive
and that clouds rather than clarifies these baffling
incidents.
So what's the gripe I
just have to get off my chest?
I celebrate as much as
anyone the new technologies that are adding different kinds of
texts and images to the raw material available to journalists.
And with the surreptitious execution video of Saddam Hussein, and now the VA
Tech video of Monday's events, the cell phone camera has surely taken its
rightful place in the "toolbox."
But why in the world do
some of the networks have to package their requests for free video as
"citizen journalism?" Is there any definition of the concept of
citizen journalism that includes networks using it as a rationale to have
viewers send them free content? I suppose I am still intrigued enough with
notions like "citizen" or "civic" journalism, and their potential for enhancing
democracy and civic involvement, that I hate to see commercial networks
defining citizen journalism as "send us your videos, all the better if they
have the sound of gunshots."
This may be petty,
but when I watch the 24 hour news channels I want to shout at the
television: You people set up these non-stop news behemoths, you fill
them mostly with mind-numbing repetition, re-runs, and personality driven
news, and when something serious happens you want us to supply
your content?
I honestly may be missing
something, but where is the democracy and civic participation in
this?
Thoughts and reactions
welcome.
Steve
PS. I will toss in that, for
those who are interested, I am on the advisory council of an organization
called the Dart Center on Journalism and Trauma at the University of
Washington. We help reporters cover these traumatic and catastrophic
incidents with sensitivity and care. Many of my colleagues are reporters
and editors who have covered stories like the Oklahoma City bombing, war
and genocide, and 9/11. You might want to check out their web site: